1. Field of the Invention
This invention relates to a bypass valve of the type commonly used with water softeners. More particularly, such valves provide two principle flow paths, one of which provides for flow into the valve from a supply, through the valve to a connected water processing tank and back through the valve from the processing tank to a system using the processed water. The other principal flow path bypasses the water processing tank, with the water flowing into the valve from a supply, and out of the valve to the system using the water, without passing through the processing tank. In the latter bypass position, the valve also acts as a "disconnect" allowing the processing tank to be physically removed from the bypass valve.
2. Description of Related Art Including Information Disclosed under Secs. 1.97-1.99
Bypass valves have been provided in the past for use with water softeners and for other applications requiring similar flow paths. Examples of such bypass valves are represented by the disclosures of the following United States Patents:
______________________________________ PATENT NO. INVENTOR ISSUE DATE ______________________________________ 638,362 Seahorn 12/05/99 2,766,771 Wenzel 10/16/56 3,090,396 Rudelick 05/21/63 3,166,499 Rudelick 01/19/65 ______________________________________
The Seahorn '362 patent shows a bypass valve which provides the same basic flow pattern as the valve of this invention, but with a different construction. The Wenzel '771 patent sets forth a control valve which utilizes O-rings in both a cylindrical and a elliptical configuration as does the bypass valve of this invention. However, in other aspects the control valve of the Wenzel patent is much different from that of this invention. The Rudelick '499 patent provides a more or less diagrammatical representation of the control valve set forth in the '396 Rudelick patent. While the diagrammatical representation of the control valve in the '499 patent appears to be of a rather simple construction, the actual construction shown in the '396 patent is much more complex. All of these patents set forth structures which either do not provide the functions which are desired in the application for which the applicants' bypass valve is intended, or only attempt to do so with a complex assembly of parts.